Bush Chooses Federal Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. For Supreme Court

On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts to be Associated Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you missed the televised announcement video is available (via CNN), and the full text of the President’s remarks are available (via the Center for Individual Freedom).

The Harvard Crimson Online provides a biography of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. his time at Harvard and beyond. Most notable is the strong bipartisan support he has received when previously nominated.

The confirmation process produced a wealth of glowing recommendations. He [Roberts] received the rating of “Well Qualified” without reservation from the American Bar Association, the highest possible mark for a jurist.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was also sent a letter by a bipartisan group of 156 members of the D.C. Bar, all of whom urged Roberts’s swift confirmation. “He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate” the letter said. “He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”

Walter E. Dellinger III, who served as solicitor general under former President Bill Clinton, even told the Judiciary Committee that, “In my view…there is no better appellate advocate than John Roberts.”

On the D.C. Circuit, Roberts has maintained his conservative reputation, although he has yet to weigh in on many of the divisive issues that come before the Supreme Court.By all appearances Roberts is an extremely solid choice – acceptable to Republicans as well as Democrats, and the word in DC is he will have no problem being confirmed.

As Underneath Their Robes noted in a humorous judicial beauty pageant last year, Judge Roberts, 49, with his “youthful,” “all-American good looks,” is the “JFK Jr. of the federal bench.”. He finished 5th in the voting last year, though with his newfound notoriety his hottie stock will probably be rising…

About The Author

54 Comments

So, ed, your fear is based upon the fact that not a lot of information is available to you about John Roberts as to his professional affects, achievements (legal decisions/actions, etc.)?

That seems to be also Ann Coulter’s reservation about him (I see someone else provided the link to her statements, so I won’t here again). However, she argues the same thing as do you, ed: that little is known about Roberts (it’s alleged) and thus, because Souter proved to be non supportive of conservative ideology after confirmation, that Roberts just might also?

I agree about the disappointment about Souter. I’ve been reading, however, more about Roberts and am not at all offput about what I’ve read about him…although do take your suggestions (and Coulter’s) seriously. I just don’t know how constructive the suggestions are at this point, given that Roberts seems to have been making a sincere effort to enforce the Constitution and not enforce his own sense of what should or should not be as to feelings, etc.

Souter was/is peculiar in that he was an obvious eccentric before his nomination, during his nomination and after his confirmation and so his behavior on the SC seems oddly ‘consistent’ in that eccentricity. In the whole nation, Souter was the only one who could be successfully confirmed? I don’t understand that nomination nor confirmation.

I also don’t as to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who, if ever there was someone committed to not enforcing our Constitution, she is it. Her presence on the SC is dastardly and terrible…I’m shocked that even some Democrats didn’t find her nomination revolting.

On the other hand, it would be worthwhile to see a man of Roberts’ consistency on the SC in light of the unreliable psychological interpretations of “law” by, particularly, Ginsberg and Souter secondly.

Best to wait and see what developes in the hearing process but so far, Roberts seems to be a consistent and reliable, well educated and competent thinker. So far, so good…

My theory about Roberts’ nomination by President Bush is that he’s nominated a highly likely to be confirmed conservative with plans to nominate later a more conservative female, once Rehnquist retires. Roberts should dissipate the entire liberal arguments to a great degree, if all goes well and as anticipated. Followed by another nomination of another conservative, almost certainly a female of popular opinion among conservatives. McGehee earlier wrote that it’s a case of “sum game” where the SC is cncerned and that’s also my perspective as to Roberts (first) followed by a second candidate of conservative person. Note that the feminist issue is always the loudest and noisiest in opposition to nominees such that conservative females have a harder time of it before the Senate/country than do conservative males.

edJuly 21, 2005

Hmmm.

1. “So, ed, your fear is based upon the fact that not a lot of information is available to you about John Roberts as to his professional affects, achievements (legal decisions/actions, etc.)?”

There is practically no information available. Those cases he plead as a lawyer you can discount because, and Roberts himself wrote something similar, that Roberts was acting on his clients behalf, and thus was promoting the theories his clients had, and not his own.

So what the hell ARE Robert’s theories? This guy has a great career in school as a student, wonderful but so what? As a judge this guy has been on the bench for about 2 years.

This is the BEST we’ve got? A guy with 2 years as a judge and no apparent scholarship?

Here’s the deal. If Roberts turns out ok for the next 35 years, then I’ll be happy. If Roberts turns out to be a flake or becomes a lefty, then everyone who spent, and is spending, all this time and effort to promote him is going to look like an asshole.

And with Google that’s forever.

ganthcSeptember 7, 2005

Ed,

Roberts is now taking Rehnquist’s spot. So, now the plot thickens. I will remind you that Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, and that the former Chief Justice was also “untested,” before he was appointed by Nixon. Yet, he proved to be a solid conservative on the court. I agree with your position that Bush should have just appointed a known conservative like Owen or Brown, but we just have to hope that Bush did the right thing. Most of his appointments so far have been solid…we can only speculate that Roberts will be too.